US bombs kill oil workers in Syria

Bill Van Auken

A US air strike on a Syrian oil refinery near the border with Turkey killed at least 30 people Sunday, many of them oil workers, the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights reported.

The refinery, just northeast of the town of Tel Abayad, was apparently targeted because it had fallen under the control of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the ostensible target of Washington’s latest military intervention in the region.

ISIS has seized control over much of northern and eastern Syria, where much of the country’s oil production is concentrated. Prior to its surge into neighboring Iraq last June, ISIS had emerged as one of the main Islamist “rebel” groups backed by Washington and its regional allies in a war for regime change against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

A spokesman for the US Combined Joint Task Force, which oversees the intervention in Iraq and Syria, responded to an inquiry by the Reuters news agency about those killed at the oil refinery with a boilerplate statement regarding civilian casualties.

“When an allegation of civilian casualties caused by US or coalition forces is determined to be credible, a thorough investigation would be launched to determine the accuracy of the claim and any circumstances surrounding it,” he stated. He went on to claim that the US military has engaged in “significant mitigation measures within the targeting process and during the conduct of operations to reduce the potential of civilian casualties and collateral damage.”

The Pentagon claims that seven months of US air strikes have killed more than 8,500 ISIS “militants” in Iraq and Syria, while providing no estimate of how many civilians have died, nor any explanation of how it distinguishes accurately between the two.

The ISIS body count was provided by Washington’s top military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Monday during a surprise visit to Baghdad.

While touting the impact of the US-led air war the previous day during a visit to a French aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf (saying that the strikes had to be “very precise” to avoid “additional suffering”), Dempsey voiced the view that “Carpet bombing through Iraq is not the answer.”

Rather, he insisted, what is required is “strategic patience” with US efforts to rebuild the US-trained Iraqi army, which collapsed last summer in the face of an ISIS offensive. “Underlying issues” had to be resolved, he added.

Following meetings Monday with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and Defense Minister Khalid al-Obeidi, Dempsey made it clear that one of the “underlying issues” of greatest concern to Washington is the Iraqi regime’s increasing dependence upon Iran for military support.

“What I’m trying to sort out, actually, is the degree to which the near-term embrace of the assistance they’re receiving from Iran is a reaction to the existential threat [posed by ISIS], or whether it is something longer-term,” Dempsey told the Associated Press.

Earlier, he voiced concerns that “it’s going to be difficult to sustain the coalition” against ISIS, which includes such reactionary Sunni monarchies as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have been principal sources of funding for ISIS and other Islamist militias fighting the Iranian-backed regime in Syria.

Iran plays a prominent role in backing a force of some 30,000, composed largely of Iraqi Shiite militias, in an offensive aimed at retaking the predominantly Sunni city of Tikrit, the birthplace of Saddam Hussein, who was overthrown and then executed in the wake of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Iranian advisors are helping direct the attack, and Iran has provided artillery and other direct military support for the offensive, in which US forces are playing no direct role.

The siege of Tikrit is seen as an essential strategic preparation for an assault on Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city to the north, which fell to ISIS last summer. Fighting was reported Monday to the north, south and west of the Tikrit.

Among the towns to fall to the pro-Iraqi government forces Sunday was Albu Ajil, where some Sunni tribesmen had been accused of participating in the ISIS massacre of hundreds of predominantly Shiite army recruits from a nearby base. At least one militia commander had cast the Tikrit offensive as an act of revenge, and there were fears of possible sectarian reprisals.

A number of Sunni residents of the area have fled to the city of Samarra to escape the attack. AFP spoke to Abu Alaa, a 50-year-old farmer, who said, “I left my sheep and my cows behind. We did not have any relations with [ISIS], we were oppressed.” He recounted that those who fled had been detained and interrogated by Shiite militiamen for a day before being allowed to continue their journey.

While US officials have issued hypocritical warnings about Iranian involvement in the Tikrit offensive exacerbating sectarian divisions, US warplanes and advisors were backing an offensive by Kurdish fighters against ISIS outside of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, to the north. Kurdish forces took control over the city during the ISIS offensive of last June, after the Iraqi army disintegrated. There are sharp sectarian tensions in Kirkuk, intensified by the struggle for control of its oil resources. The population is divided between Kurds, Arabs, Assyrians and Turkmen.

Dempsey acknowledged that US efforts to retrain the Iraqi army had barely begun. The general, who directed the efforts to train an Iraqi puppet army under the US occupation, indicated that the Pentagon is attempting to purge the Iraqi force of commanders that it does not see as reliable, while acknowledging that there are an inadequate number of recruits for the US to train.

“Militarily, I was clear that there still are some leaders who need to be replaced,” he said. “There is still a shortage of recruits. There are still instances where those recruits are not being paid on time, equipped properly.”

Dempsey dismissed calls from elements in Congress to send more US troops to train and “advise” Iraqi forces. “We’ve got trainers and advisers that are waiting for some of the Iraqi units to show up,” he said, referring to the nearly 2,700 US troops already on the ground.

Greece told deeper austerity needed to secure additional loans

Robert Stevens

Euro zone finance ministers met Monday to discuss a set of proposals from the Syriza-led Greek government based on the austerity programme both sides signed on February 20. Greece was required to submit a list of austerity measures deemed acceptable to its creditors as a precondition for receiving a pending load of €7.2 billion and any further loans.

The Eurogroup meeting ended within 90 minutes. In a clear sign that there would be no retreat from finalising an austerity package, the finance ministers agreed that “technical talks” between Greece and its main creditors, the European Union (EU), European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), would begin Wednesday.

Speaking at a press conference following the meeting, Eurogroup Chairman Jeroen Dijsselbloem said, “We have spent the last two weeks discussing who will meet whom, where, and in what configuration. It’s been a complete waste of time…”

The Eurogroup “needed to see signs that reforms are being implemented,” he demanded, warning that there “can be no talk about early disbursement if there is no agreement and no implementation.” The Greek government, he added, had promised the Eurogroup that it would take no unilateral actions or roll back austerity measures already adopted.

Without billions of euros being made available in loans, Greece faces default on its €320 billion foreign debt in a matter of weeks. The euro zone meeting took place amid dire warnings that Greece’s banks can no longer finance the economy due to their lack of liquidity and an ongoing flight of deposits.

Nearly €20 billion were withdrawn from the banks in January and February. There is a nearly €80 billion gap between the €135 billion available in the banks’ deposits and their loan balance, which exceeds €210 billion. The banks only have temporary access to high interest rate emergency liquidity assistance (ELA) from the ECB, which can be ended at any time.

One senior bank official told Kathimerini, “As things stand, it is simply impossible for us to finance the economy, as we can only marginally cover the cash needs of our clients.”

Last Friday, Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis submitted a letter to the Eurogroup with a list of six proposed reforms. These included hiring students and even tourists as temporary “nonprofessional” tax inspectors, vague “antibureaucracy” initiatives, and measures to raise revenue from online gambling. The letter was derided as being nowhere near adequate.

Upon taking office, Syriza began its rapid capitulation to the demands of global capital, insisting it had already agreed to 70 percent of the austerity measures in place. Addressing Syriza’s latest proposals Sunday, Dijsselbloem said, “Those absolutely won’t be accepted as the 30 percent that they wanted to replace.”

In a letter to Varoufakis, Dijsselbloem stressed that the proposals would also have to be evaluated and approved by the ECB and the IMF.

European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis rejected Greece’s letter out of hand, telling a German newspaper that “a letter here or there isn’t going to change much.”

Since the February agreement, the ECB has tightened the screws, insisting that there is no alternative to continuing with mass austerity and repayment of Greece’s mountain of debt. ECB Governing Council member Luc Coene told the Belgian daily De Tijd Saturday that Greece would have to carry out new austerity measures or face leaving the euro zone, which “will be ten times worse for them. Ten times.”

Coene declared, “I do not believe there is a radically different way… Syriza has made promises it cannot keep,” and the Greek people “will understand quickly that they were deceived by false promises.”

He threatened, “Reform is the only way… Tell me where the money should come from if the Greeks do not want reform and do not want to repay other European countries?”

In agreeing last month to an extension of the austerity agreement signed by the previous New Democracy/PASOK government, Varoufakis and Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, the leader of Syriza, farcically claimed that they would no longer be accountable to the widely despised EU, ECB, IMF “troika,” which, they declared, would no longer be returning to Athens to monitor austerity. In fact, they had agreed to a continuation of Greece’s subordination to the troika members, merely—and with consummate cynicism—renaming them the “institutions.”

This terminological sleight of hand was the only “concession” won by the Greek government in nearly a month of negotiations.

In reality, everything is being done on the troika’s terms, as has been the case since 2010. Even the pretence of renaming the troika has been ditched, with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble purposefully using the word numerous times as he entered Monday’s meeting and other euro zone ministers, including Dijsselbloem, following suit. Far from an end to the troika’s monitoring of the Greek government in Athens, the technical talks beginning Wednesday will be held in both Brussels and Greece, Dijsselbloem told the press conference.

The response of the euro zone ministers to the Greek government reveals the ruthless character of this capitalist body. Greek voters, who elected Syriza based on the party’s election promises to end austerity, have been told their votes count for nothing. The financial aristocracy and its institutions will tolerate nothing that impedes the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

The response of the ruling class to Greece’s catastrophe exposes thefraudulent perspective on which Syriza secured its election victory. Syriza claimed its agenda of negotiating a debt restructuring programme on the basis of remaining in the European Union would be persuasive to sections of the ruling elite and was the only realistic way forward. Instead, Syriza was made to grovel and capitulated in a matter of days.

The Greek government moved quickly Sunday to quash comments attributed to Varoufakis in an Italian newspaper that if Athens’ proposals were not accepted, new elections or a referendum on EU membership could be contemplated.

Even after having his letter of proposals to the Eurogroup ridiculed, Varoufakis spent the weekend attempting to shore up illusions in the EU. Forced to acknowledge that his proposal to replace Greece’s current debt with bonds linked to nominal growth had met with “silence,” he pleaded, “I’d like for Europe to understand that this would be a way of paying back more money, not less.”

While a section of the ruling elite is concerned about the impact of a “Grexit” on the stability of Europe’s fragile economy, other voices are demanding that if Greece does not carry out deeper cuts, it should be allowed to leave the euro zone. The aim is to make clear that there will be no let-up in austerity in either Greece or anywhere else in Europe.

At a recent forum of the Financial Times’ FT City Network, comprised of 50 of the City of London’s most influential financiers, asset managers and insurers, Robert Swannell, chairman of Marks and Spencer, and Stephen Hester, head of insurer RSA, described Greece’s position within the euro zone as akin to “an emperor with no clothes.”

The Financial Times noted that Hester “argued that the euro zone should take a more aggressive stance, triggering Grexit if the Greek government baulks at further reforms.” Hester said, “If Greece isn’t prepared to reform enough to stay in, I don’t think the EU should risk the knock-on political dangers of too much compromise towards Greece that could halt reform in other member states.”

Police killings and the collapse of democracy in America

Andre Damon

It is becoming increasingly clear that in working-class communities across the United States, the police function as virtual death squads, beating and killing people with legal impunity.

This reality was once again demonstrated Friday with the killing of 19-year-old Anthony Terrell Robinson in Madison, Wisconsin. On Monday, some 1,500 people, including hundreds of high school students, massed inside the state capitol building to protest the killing.

Matt Kenny, a twelve-year veteran of the Madison Police Department, forced his way into the house where Robinson was staying and fired multiple bullets into the unarmed teenager. The officer, who subsequently claimed Robinson had assaulted him, shot and killed another man in 2007 but was exonerated and even received a service commendation.

Robinson had just graduated from high school and was preparing to attend Milwaukee Area Technical College to study business.

Every day, millions of workers and young people in America face threats, intimidation, beatings and even murder at the hands of cops, whose badges give them a license to kill. Arbitrary police violence and terror are facts of life, alongside chronic mass unemployment, worsening poverty and dwindling educational opportunities.

Robinson is the 192nd person to be killed by police in the US so far this year. In the three days since his death, there have been five more victims. According to official statistics, the number of Americans killed by cops in 2013 was the highest in decades.

Robinson’s mother said the young man spoke about police brutality “constantly” and was deeply affected by last summer’s protests against police violence in Ferguson, Missouri.

The de facto state sanction for police killings was demonstrated only days before Robinson’s death when the Obama administration announced that it would not file charges against Darren Wilson, the Ferguson police officer who shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, another unarmed African American youth, in August.

Speaking before students at a town hall event in Columbia, South Carolina on Friday, the same day Robinson was killed, Obama defended the Justice Department decision to clear Wilson, who pumped at least six bullets into Brown in broad daylight. Obama praised the police for doing their jobs “fairly” and “heroically.”

“Officer Wilson,” Obama declared, “like anybody else who is charged with a crime, benefits from due process and a reasonable doubt standard. And if there is uncertainty about what happened, then you can’t just charge them anyway just because what happened was tragic.”

This is a staggering falsification of due process as defined by the US Constitution, the practical result of which is to virtually preclude the prosecution of cops, no matter how brutal their crimes. Obama ignored the fact that Wilson was not charged, and justified this travesty of justice by substituting the standard of proof required to convict a criminal defendant at trial, guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, for the much looser standard, probable cause, for filing criminal charges.

There was more than ample “probable cause” for charging Wilson with murder, including multiple eyewitness accounts, as there was for charging the New York cop who was videotaped choking Eric Garner to death, and was similarly allowed to go scot-free.

The White House has extended to the police the de facto immunity that applies to higher operatives of the capitalist state, such as CIA torturers and their superiors, and those, including Obama himself, who order the extrajudicial assassination of alleged terrorists, including American citizens. This above-the-law status also applies to the Wall Street criminals who plunged the US and the world into economic slump and have used the disaster of their own making to cheat and steal with even greater abandon, growing still richer in the process.

While Obama demands virtual certainty of guilt to charge police killers, their victims have absolutely no rights. The Declaration of Independence’s eloquent invocation of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is rendered meaningless in a society where police operate as judge, jury and executioner, free to snuff out the life of a youth like Tony Robinson, secure in the knowledge that they will not be called to account.

That police in large swaths of America function as the equivalent of paramilitary counterinsurgency and occupation forces was indicated by the Justice Department’s own report on systematic police abuse in Ferguson, released the same day as the announcement that officer Wilson would not be charged.

The report declared that “officers violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force.” It noted that “people are punished for talking back to officers, recording public police activities, and lawfully protesting perceived injustices.”

The report cited the example of police siccing a dog on a fourteen-year-old boy, then “[striking] him while he was on the ground, one of them putting a boot on the side of his head,” and laughing about the incident afterward.

Contrary to Obama’s claim that the regime of terror in Ferguson is not “endemic” to America, the federal government itself has issued similar reports over the past year on the police departments in Cleveland and Albuquerque, New Mexico. The same conditions prevail in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit and every other city in the country.

What accounts for the growing wave of police violence and murder? Attempts to attribute the situation to a few “bad apples” or even mere corruption are derisory. A phenomenon of such virulence and on such a scale must reflect objective factors deeply rooted in the structure of society. Even if one wished to put the primary blame on the homicidal tendencies and social backwardness, including racism, of individual cops, the question that would have to be answered is: Why are such forces recruited in such numbers into the country’s police departments?

The United States is riven by social and class contradictions that can no longer be contained within the framework of bourgeois democratic procedures. First and foremost is the ever more virulent growth of social inequality. This goes hand in hand with escalating military violence and aggression internationally, as the American ruling class seeks to offset its economic decline by means of war and plunder.

Endless war and militarism abroad fuel the militarization of society at home. The American ruling class looks upon the American working class as its greatest enemy. It lives in perpetual fear of the emergence of mass social opposition to inequality, war and repression. Hence the militarization of the police at home and the increasing use of the counterinsurgency methods of murder and repression employed in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries against workers and youth within the borders of the United States.

Madison, the state capital of Wisconsin, was the scene of mass protests by workers and young people in 2011 against the drive by Republican Governor Scott Walker, who is now seeking his party’s nomination for US president, to slash social spending, cut public employee pensions, and strip workers of their right to bargain collectively.

Last month, Walker, referring to the US war against ISIS, declared, “If I could take on 100,000 protesters, I could do the same across the world,” implicitly drawing an equal sign between working-class demonstrators and terrorist groups targeted by the US for annihilation.

Walker’s statement reflected the real state of class relations in America. It pointed to the fact, deliberately obscured by the singled-minded focus on race on the part of the political establishment and the media, as well as their pseudo-left appendages, that the essential division in American is between the working class and the capitalists.

While racism certainly plays a role in police violence, the attempts to present the issue as primarily one of race serves to block the working class from recognizing that the root cause of repression and poverty is the capitalist system, and that the defense of democratic rights requires the unification of all sections of the working class in the struggle for socialism.

State of Play: Non-Proliferation, Fissile Material Cut-Offs and Nuclear Transparency

Vijay Shankar

Tools that promote a stable nuclear relationship between nations are characterised by a congruence of views on non-proliferation of weapon and vector technologies, fissile material control and strategic transparency; the last makes clear the strategic underpinnings that motivate weapon programmes. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was negotiated in 1968 and entered into force in 1970, is the corner stone of all international efforts to provide stability within the bounds of a globally ‘iniquitous’ nuclear regulatory system by limiting access to nuclear weapons. The impetus behind the NPT was a stated concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon States. It was recognised that the Cold War deterrent relationship between just the US and the Soviet Union was fragile. Having more nuclear weapon States would reduce security for all, multiplying the risks of miscalculation, accidents, unauthorised use of weapons and the hazards of regional tensions escalating to nuclear conflict. The concept of the NPT process was formulated by Frank Aiken, Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958. A total of 190 States have joined the Treaty, though North Korea, which acceded to the NPT in 1985 but never came into compliance, announced its withdrawal in 2003. States that have never joined the NPT are India, Israel, and Pakistan.

The NPT is, unfortunately, a flawed treaty; while its origins pre-date the Cuban Crisis, it was the fragility of the existing fraught relationship between the two super powers that pushed leadership towards a pact that restricted possession of nuclear weapons. Based on a ‘bargain’ that traded denial of nuclear weapons for peaceful use technologies, it distinguishes between three categories of States: nuclear-weapon States (the US, Russia, UK, France, and China), non-nuclear weapons States and thirdly States that are not signatories of the Treaty in possession of nuclear weapons (India, Israel and Pakistan). Many of the non-nuclear weapons States agreed to forego nuclear armament because the nuclear-armed States made a promise that in return they would work towards nuclear reductions with the ultimate aim of abandoning all nuclear weapons and because the nuclear have-nots had been promised support in making strictly peaceful use of nuclear energy. The system has not evolved to find a status for the last category of players whose security needs were neither addressed nor any remission given.

Western thinking (by which is implied the nuclear haves) on the matter is, regrettably, dominated by only two issues: how best to retain the power exclusivity of the ‘Nuclear Club’ and the situation in the Middle East. Questions related to nuclear proliferation, hazards of non-State actors gaining access to nuclear weapons and stability of nuclear relations, on the other hand, have taken a back seat. The US and Russia, as the States with by far the biggest nuclear arsenals, have neither shown the imagination nor the will to formulate a new dispensation that holds nuclear stability as a function of enforceable transparency and an acceptance of No First Use as an inviolable first step towards disarmament.

On the ground, the US accuses Russia of violating the Intermediate Nuclear Force (INF) treaty that commits both sides to abolishing their intermediate-range nuclear arms; there is no progress in matters of multilateral nuclear disarmament; the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is a distant illusion as the US has still failed to ratify the treaty; there are no negotiations or an agreed agenda over stopping the production of fissile material for military purposes; the Geneva Conference on Disarmament that is intended for this purpose cannot agree on the principles that will govern the Treaty. While transparency in arsenals and doctrines has been rendered opaque as nuclear weapon States have found new reason to enlarge and modernise. In this mileu ‘Global Zero’ remains a Utopian ideal.

The ‘cardiac’ arrest in the nuclear disarmament agenda is more symptomatic of the growing perception that in an uncertain world, nuclear weapons provide a persuasive argument for strategic stability. During the Cold War, strategic doctrines relied heavily on nuclear weapons for their deterrent effect; it resulted in a veritable freeze in the probability of war in Europe. Today, while the picture may have changed due to tensions of the multipolar and the competitive tyranny of economics, the need to underscore the boundaries of inter-State behaviour remains an imperative. In the absence of globally accepted regulatory regimes not only are conflictual situations likely to arise and have indeed arisen, but there is also a necessity that these conflicts remain restrained; this is where the deterrent value of nuclear weapons plays a role till such time that an alternate disincentive can be devised. It is also for this reason that nations are increasingly demanding reliable extended nuclear deterrence. The escalating friction in the South and East China Seas; the war in Ukraine where a nuclear-armed Moscow has arrogated Crimea (and parts of eastern Ukraine) in defiance of the December 1994 Budapest Memorandum; the seemingly irrational nature of North Korea’s nuclear threats; the continued existence of nuclear black market networks of AQ Khan notoriety; the appearance of non-State actors into the equation and China’s programme of nuclear proliferation which has nurtured and continues to sustain and enlarge Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, are all demonstrative of the current apocalyptical state of play.  For many nations, this has reinforced the impression that possession of nuclear weapons adds-up to strength, protection, and inviolability; while foregoing nuclear weapons can threaten the very existence of the State. As the importance of nuclear weapons increases in a geopolitical environment of uncertainty the prospects of stability becomes bleaker.

An appraisal of the contemporary universal state of nuclear affairs will suggest that the three pillars of global nuclear stability, namely, non-proliferation, control of fissile material production and transparency of nuclear arsenals are wobbly for lack of foundational support. And in the truancy of global foundational support, the answer may well lie in establishing a regional framework of détente. 

Holy War Of Religion And Science

Keshav Niranjan

Historically, when we analyze the Indian society, we find that India was ruled by many invaders rather than ruled by self. Consequently question arises why Indian ruling class who claim themselves knowledgeable or vishwa guru, were not capable to protect themselves and surrendered before invaders, and ran away to spoil this nation. If they were really vishwa guru, then where had their knowledge gone, because valid knowledge always implies right view, right intention, right action, right effort and produce right result. Prolong slavery of this nation compels us to check whether self proclaimed vishwa guru class is really knowledgeable or just carrying the burden of vishwa guru tag, because they had failed to protect themselves and their knowledge did not provide any materialistic and ethical progress in our society. Their knowledge contributes to produce gender imbalance, misogyny, feudalism, untouchables and castes in our society. Majority of our population is suffering from hunger, poverty and our children are malnourished, and major section of society is unable to access human values such as equality, dignity of every human being, distributive justice, and social accountability by their knowledge system. So, their knowledge isn't real knowledge, it was just bundles of myths. Again, if you are so high enlightened community on earth then why India is suffering from social evils, and who is responsible for all these problems, you being the ruling class.

In past, our rulers filled with myths from nail to toe, and moved by myths and false self pride, believed in invalid knowledge and consequently got defeated. This knowledge was not factually and experimentally true. Even now the Indian ruling class is not ready to take lessons from the past, as they are adamant to eulogize the invalid knowledge systems as valid knowledge systems for sectarian benefit. It is very harmful to believe in false self glory, as it is a big hurdle in progress of our society. Perhaps, only this has rendered our society culturally, socially, educationally and economically backward. Indian ruling class is busy in spreading false claim that we invented nuclear power, aero plane, plastic surgery and stem cell, or whatever invention in science that is already present in our scriptures.

Moreover, ruling class surrounded by false self pride, such as, claiming to enlighten the world by their inventions, while the fact is that for technology, education and most of the necessary areas of human life we are dependent on western knowledge. If you ask them when did you enlighten and how did you enlighten this world by your invention, then they will give you the reference of some religious scripture and will ask you to read it. In the scientific era, only written-in-scriptures is not sufficient for claiming the ownership of inventions. This has to be supported with concrete evidence showing procedures and implementations of things.

 Indian ruling elites is inclined to live with myths. Due to prolong training in this stuff, their reason is revolving around the wheel of faith, consequently their intellectual progress has been handicapped and they have become custodian and patron of this culture. Due to their patriotism of this culture, it has flourished in Indian society. This has provided them legitimacy for their innate superiority. Habit of Indian ruling class to live with myths and spreading myths is not new. This is giving pleasure to them and making them more powerful, because when society will be uneducated and irrational, they can easily rule without any challenge. They will fear only when any stronger invader has attacked, because in this situation they are habitual of surrendering before them.

Moreover, they are using science as a tool for personal gain. Their effort is to provide scientific validity for religious myths. Their solely interest lies in preserving the religion through science rather than promoting real science. They avoid facing problems and challenges of society, instead create virtual reality in mind of masses projecting that they are culturally rich from the past and have already developed society.

Their biased attitude towards science is like Hindi idiom ‘gud khayo and gulgula se parhej' (you eat jaggery but refuse eating sweet fruits). It means you use science twenty-four hours but refuse to give credit to science. This dodgy attitude can be seen in the Indian ruling class on many occasions like praising the fatalistic myths of Hinduism, and prescribing it to the deprived masses for their self gain.

 Although India, China and South Korea got independence in the same time period, but economic and industrial growth results show that China and South Korea have been prompt in adopting and implementing science and modern education. In contrary to this Indian ruling class is not ready to change old dogma and superstitious beliefs, and not ready to easily mingle with the scientific temper based life style. Indeed, halfheartedly effort of Indian government is not producing satisfactory result in popularity of science. Still religious hymns and myths dominate the mind set of Indian people. Here science has become secondary knowledge system. This religious dominance is hindrance in producing core scientific knowledge.

All educated people are not always rationalists. Indian science professionals are living in a dilemma for the knowledge regarding the creation of this cosmos and other worldly phenomena. On the one hand they have professional view, and on the other due to cultural and religious influence they have personal view in this regard. This duality is blurring the rationality. The dominance and popularity of religious teachings have obliged them to undermine science. This is how Indian scientists and academician are suffering from prejudice and chauvinism.

Although science and religion both are claiming to unravel and explain reality, but their methodology is different in formulating this knowledge. Science uses the following process: it collects empirical facts (the evidence), applies critical reasoning (based on the evidence), and outlines a tentative theory. In case either the reasoning or the facts may be wrong, so it is submitted to a jury of peers for their agreement. On the other hand religious knowledge based on study of scriptures (believed to be God's word), accept it by faith (based on instinct, feeling, intuition), and Revealed Truth (must not be doubted). Thus science relies on empirical means such as observations, commonsense, statistics, and laboratory experiments, whereas the religious domain is evocative. Religion relies on emotions, mysteries, superstitions, miracles, prophecies, revelations.

War of religious view and scientific view about the life can be seen in different ways:

Religion always prescribes meta physical principles to any inquiry, and metaphysics leads to lack of interest in present life and to a concern for an imaginary salvation in the other world. Indian philosopher Sankaracharya says that “Brahman is the only truth, the spatio-temporal world is an illusion”. Therefore whatever your worldly behaviors, they are not important because this world is an illusion. So, it is worthless to ethically and morally develop yourself. ‘Ideological and philosophical factors, like the world-denying Mayabad preached by Sankara, contributed to the decay of scientific temper' (Ghosh, 2000:69-70).  The teaching of meta-physical principles restricted the materialistic and moral progress of society. Source of morality in theist religion is God and divine principles, whereas source of morality in science is ethical principles. Religion propagates the intelligent design theory for origin of universe. According to all theist religions origin of the universe is based on the doctrine of creation. It means that universe is created by the will of God, and God intelligently designs the world. Origin of universe in science is based on the evolution and natural selection that directly challenge the foundations of all religions.

Science is dynamic, and its claims may be changed or modified depending on the realities being studied. Scientific theory is falsifiable and scientists do research and develop theories without any prejudice. On the other hand, religions are static because their theologies are ingrained in archaic texts that are considered to be the words of God and one should not dare to change, challenge, or refute them. Theology can't be falsifiable; it is based on top-down approach.

Although, attack by French Islamic fundamentalists on Charlie Hebedo has declared starting of new war between ignorance and science worldwide and Pope Francis's statement in this regard gives evidence that except ownership, all religious fundamentalists are similar in nature worldwide; all are against rationality, love and openness. India is not exception to this phenomenon. Rome was burning and Nero was fiddling, this idiom is true in Indian context; RSS is destroying the scientific temper of the nation, and brining the old barbaric, irrational culture. Our government is luring to nation by development, and Indian opposition parties are going in deep sleep due to dishonesty and foolishness. For maintaining the spirit of science, Article 51 (A) says that “it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”. Irreverence of Science can't be tolerated, therefore honorable judiciary must take sue motto action against enemies of scientific temper, and oppositional political parties should ready for mass movement in support of science making it a way of life.

Women's Empowerment: From Adversity To Prosperity

 Shobha Shukla

(CNS): It is not uncommon to hear about tales of migration from villages to cities in search of greener pastures. But, 22 years ago, a quirk of fate trans-located 42 years old Preeti from the city of Gorakhpur to a village called Bantaaniya. The youngest of 5 siblings—3 sisters and 2 brothers—Preeti grew up in Gorakhpur, a town in east UP, India. She had a comfortable childhood as her father had a government job in the railways.

She had never felt that her parents discriminated between sons and daughters until, soon after her mother’s untimely death, she was married off in a rural family, much against her wishes.

Life after marriage

Preeti recalls the trials and tribulations, which her marriage at the tender age of 18 years brought upon her. She had to leave the comforts of an urban life to embrace the hardships of the rural household of her husband. She had just passed class 10 and wanted to continue with her education. But she did not have the courage to go against her father’s and brothers’ wishes who believed that there was no point in educating girls as they were not supposed to take up a job. They thought it best to get rid of their responsibilities by marrying her off. Like a dutiful daughter, as girls are supposed to be, she meekly sacrificed her dreams to enter a new and difficult phase of her life at a very young age.

Her marriage was a big letdown for her. Her in-laws were basically farmers and not very well off. It was a joint family of parents-in-law and her husband’s four brothers. She had no option but to fit into the framework of a docile and shy daughter-in-law and abide by the wishes of her elders. She lived in a mud house (with no toilet) whose rooms would flood in the monsoons, so much so that there was no place to cook food. This was in stark contrast to her brick-walled house in Gorakhpur with all basic facilities.

She mostly stayed indoors and was too immature perhaps to even think of women empowerment. It was a difficult life in the village and she was forced to endure it—where else could she go with her 3 kids—2 daughters and 1 son. But when the going became very tough she and her husband separated from the rest of the family.

Her work as a farmer

It was only later when she came in contact with some NGO group that she became emboldened enough to fight for her and other women’s rights.

Preeti’s journey to become a successful woman farmer has been a difficult one—more so because she was from an urban background and had no idea about what farming was. She says, “I was not educated much, but wanted to improve my economic situation. I wanted to educate my children to give them a better future. Farming was the only recourse left for me."

She had in her the drive to learn new things and slowly became adept at farming. Now, “I do everything on my own—sowing, ploughing of fields, reaping the harvest and even selling my crops in the mandi. I started by growing vegetables like spinach, carrot, radish, and peas. I would travel long distances to sell the vegetables. But now I also grow wheat and paddy. How many other women can do all this all by themselves?”

She also got trained to make organic manure and pesticides after coming in contact with Gorakhpur Environment Action Group (GEAG) and since then has been using her self-made organic manure (compost) for the crops. This has proved to be a real game changer—“Earlier we would use urea chemical fertilizers and our earnings were less. But vegetables grown organically, being healthier and tastier, are more in demand and fetch a higher price too.”

“Farming has helped me a lot. I grow something or the other all the year round. The paddy that I grow feeds my family. The vegetables are money earners. I have mostly self-educated myself on farming techniques. I only took training to make manure and then taught this to other women too. I have been associated with the Aaroh Mahila Kisaan Manch ('Aaroh' is a campaign for rights and recognition of women farmers in Uttar Pradesh supported by Oxfam India) since the last 10 years and have also motivated other women farmers to become its members.”

Her husband is not into farming and works as a labourer specializing in fitting marble tiles. He was given 1 bigha (0.5-0.6 acres) land as his share in his father’s property. Preeti managed to take 1 more bigha from the parental property share after a long drawn out legal battle.

“I really fought for many years to get my husband’s share of land. After my father-in-law died my husband was not very keen to fight for his rightful share of land. But I stood my ground and today I have this land with me. The 2 bighas of land are in my husband’s name, but I think that at least all land should be in joint names of husband and wife and then the husband would not be able to sell it without his wife’s consent.”

Fighting for women’s rights

The difficulties which women of her village faced everyday encouraged her to do something for their betterment. She was closely involved in establishing women’s self-help groups (SHGs) in the village and motivated women to join them. “We increased our kitty to INR 50,000 through small individual contributions of INR 10, 20 or 30. In case of need they can take loan from it at nominal interest.”

An improvement in economic status and general awareness has helped Preeti mobilize the village women to fight for their rights and negotiate better to redress their problems—“I try to empower other women and train them in any new technique which I learn, and collectively we fight for our rights. I feel rural women are more ready to fight for their rights out of economic necessity. Urban women are more complacent as their husbands have jobs and perhaps this financial safety makes them unresponsive.”

Besides being a successful farmer, Preeti has been at the forefront of fighting for development and gender justice: “We have some important achievements. We women collectively managed to force the RPF people not to release the water from their flooded compound into our fields and homes during every monsoon. We did a lot of dharnas (sit-ins) and then only did they improve their drainage system.”

“We are also agitating for proper functioning of the public distribution system (PDS). There are many anomalies in villages regarding functioning of ration shops. Although all households have ration cards, only those whose cards have been put online, are getting the rations from PDS. Even they are not getting their full due—they are entitled to receive 35 kg in a month but the shopkeeper doles out only 10 kg and makes an entry of 35 kg. We have been protesting and demonstrating against this anomaly and have even approached the DM. but though enquiries have been made, the situation has not improved.”

“Recently I came to know that some women were charged INR 10 per kg for wheat, instead of INR 6 per kg from the ration shop on their white coloured card (yellow card holders get it at INR 10 per kg). when I threatened to report the matter the shop owner returned the excess money he had charged.”

Some self-styled local political agents/middle men in the village would collect INR100 from each of the 400 households on the pretext of getting some village work done at the district level, saying that they had to pay bribes to get the work done. One day Preeti thought that enough is enough. She asked them to give the villagers an account of the expenses incurred, which they did not. So, at her behest, the villagers stopped giving them money and themselves started going to the city to meet the officials and saw that they did not have to pay any bribe. Thus Preeti helped stop the illegal practice of money collection.

Women farmers

Women farmers face lot many other difficulties too. It is not uncommon for their land to be usurped by antisocial elements. Or else, very often, the husband sells the land without the wife’s consent, for short-term financial gains. Preeti has helped many such women get back their land by acting as the go between.

She rightly feels that women and men have to collectively fight for the irregularities that have become part of our system, more so because of public inaction—“We do not get our rights on a platter-- we have to fight for them. I always help other women to get their rightful due.”

Women’s education, marriage and family planning

Preeti believes that it is very important for women to be educated. She has helped many women to at least be able to write their names—by using charcoal pieces while working in the kitchen, when nothing else is available.

“Girls should not be married at a young age. I bore the brunt of early marriage but will not let my daughters be married off quickly. My elder daughter is doing her graduation, and the younger one is in class 12. I will not marry them till they finish their education.”

“I also believe that we should limit our family. I have borne 3 children, as I was ignorant about family planning methods. But one should not have more than 2 children. A small family is indeed a happy family.”

Never say die

There is a sea change in the firebrand Preeti of today as compared to the meek and submissive Preeti of yesteryear. Financially she is better off and her living standards have improved. She has also bought some land to build another house by taking loan from the bank. All this has bolstered her self-confidence. She proudly claims that she is now fully capable of running and managing her family even in the absence of her husband. Preeti concedes that although he does not help her with farming, he does acknowledge his wife’s capabilities. “He has given me a free hand and I manage everything single handedly—right from doing household chores, to working in the fields, to looking after my children’s education, to helping and galvanizing other village women.”

Preeti has conquered many male dominated bastions and treaded upon paths, which others would normally fear to step upon. She is at the forefront of spearheading demonstrations to fight for not only the rights of women farmers but of all the villagers—forcing authorities to get the drains cleaned, voters’ list corrected, water-logging removed; ration cards anomalies rectified; freeing land from encroachers—the list can go on and on. No wonder that even people of her native town of Gorakhpur marvel at her achievements and look upon her with reverence.

Preeti offers sane advice—“Other women should take a lesson from me. After my marriage I had lost all hope and resigned myself to my fate, thinking that this was the end of my happiness. But slowly I gathered courage and changed my own fate through my hard work. Where there is a will there is a way. Life is too short and precious to be wasted away within the closed walls of our homes. We should learn from, and teach others continuously.”

Greece: Limited Options, Limited Prospects

Jon V Kofas

The day after the Greek left-center party SYRIZA won the election of January 2015, optimism ran across Europe’s progressive quarters, while the conservatives and neoliberals acr4oss the world insisted the new regime was extreme left and it would invite disaster. Just a few short weeks after that election, the world knows that SYRIZA was indeed a center-left regime, one trying to introduce some modest reforms in a bankrupt nation whose future is really the past of even greater dependence instead of the future of greater national sovereignty in all domains from economy to defense.

Greece has always (1832-present) been a debtor country, always suffered balance of payments deficits, always been a dependency of a Great Power, first Great Britain, then the US and more recently Germany. This was true of the Balkans that were northwest Europe equivalent of what Central America has been to the US. The larger question in the 21st century for Greece is not whether it will remain a dependency as it always has been, and it is not whether Greece can be elevated to the status of Belgium that is about the same as Greece in terms of population but has twice the GDP of Greece and much higher living standards. The future of Greece is actually the past, a reversal to the Cold War when Greece was an economically weak country on the periphery of Europe. Germany has made it clear that it wants Greece to be in line with the rest of the Balkans in terms of living standards, which means several notches down from pre-austerity levels. Therefore, continued EU integration entails not raising but lowering living standards, not greater national sovereignty but much less.

What are the possible choices for Greece in this post-Cold War environment of globalization and neo-liberalism?

a) The Greek Communist Party KKE favors the road to Communism by nationalizing everything, repudiating the national debt, exiting NATO, EU, IMF, and all treaties and obligation. How realistic is this scenario at this point in history, and what is the percentage of the people who would support it? Considering that the Greek Communist Party has about 5% of the vote, this scenario is highly unrealistic and public support would not go above 20% at best even if the KKE came to power by magic. International isolation would be its fate and without a “Chinese-style sponsor” like North Korea has, the regime would fall.

b) Through the conviction of their ideals, Greek SYRIZA (center-leftist ruling party) can try to change the euro zone and the German-imposed patron-client integration model. This is actually what SYRIZA promised before the election of January 2015, along with a long list of social and economic measures it has failed to adopt because the EU will not permit them. The idea that Greece can change the German-imposed patron-client integration model and the current neo-liberal course of the euro zone is even more unrealistic than going Communist. Integration models are not subject to change by the weak debtor client countries whose only option is to abandon the integration model and see if it can survive.

c) Greece could stay the course with austerity and neo-liberal policies that have ruined the economy in the last five years. With weak health care, educational system, and social security, the social fabric has come unglued resulting in one-third of the people near or under the poverty line. One result is a polarized society with the neo-Nazi party becoming the third most popular. As pessimistic as this sounds it is actually the most likely scenario not because people believe the promises about light at the end of the tunnel, but because they fear disaster if they dare leave the tunnel.

d) Greece could try to switch patrons and see the degree to which China and Russia would be interested in becoming the new patrons. However, Russia is facing financial problems of its own, and China would not want to alienate either Western Europe by making Greece a Chinese financial dependency or the US that has important naval and intelligence gathering bases in Greece. Historically, the creditor country that owned the public debt of a small debtor country enjoyed hegemony in all affairs from economic to geopolitical. The idea that Greece could switch patrons from West to East is premature, though not out of the question by the end of the century when China could be the undisputed world leader.

e) Greece could re-establish a modicum of national sovereignty by introducing a policy mix on the non-aligned model of economic nationalism that was popular in a number of countries from Indonesia and Egypt in the 1950s and 1960s. With modifications to accommodate the realities of globalization, quasi-statism and a modicum of economic nationalism with aspects of neo-liberalism has resurfaced in the BRICS nations in the last two decades. This too is an unlikely scenario because the apologists of austerity and neo-liberalism would immediately baptize economic nationalism just another form of “Communism” as they have in the past.

f) A policy mix that takes into account the current integration model and obligations to foreign creditors along with their demands for internal policy changes toward more neo-liberal course, combined with massive crackdown on public and private sector corruption to raise revenue, and combined with sharp cuts in the defense sector that absorbs 2.1-2.5% of GDP is another scenario. This is highly unlikely because every political party from far right to far left support defense spending.

Greece has been facing a technical bankruptcy and its public debt amounting to 175-180% of GDP in 2015 may not be paid off until the last quarter of the century, assuming no future obstacles. In 2015, Greece has a public debt that cannot possibly be serviced at current GDP growth rates because its revenues are not sufficient to meet internal needs and service the debt at the same time. Foreign borrowing constantly to service the debt only makes the aggregate debt larger in relationship to GDP that has shrunk by 25% under the austerity of the IMF and EU from 2010 until 2015. Because Greece is not an exporting nation and its economic activity is largely resting on consumer demand, and because it has a very low percentage of its population working full time in relationship with other EU countries, it cannot possibly service the public debt. The solution as far as IMF and EU are concerned, take the money from the middle class and workers, thus lowering their living standards even lower.

It is very unfortunate that SYRIZA adopted a left-progressive rhetoric that appealed to a disillusioned lower middle class but in fact it had nothing behind the rhetoric. In this respect, SYRIZA is no different than PASOK elected in 1980 under Andreas Papandreou who promised a Socialist government but by the early 1990s had brought the party and the country in line with neo-liberalism. SYRIZA talked a big game and enthralled progressive within the country, around Europe and around the world. However, the absence of any real leverage in negotiation was apparent very quickly when Athens yielded to everything that the IMF and Germany demanded. After initial negotiations that essentially amounted to no change on the part of the IMF and EU position regarding austerity and neo-liberalism, SYRIZA bought itself a four-month grace period to come up with a more permanent program, presumably another round of borrowing to service the unserviceable debt and another round of measures that amount to income transfer from the lower and middle classes to the creditors.

The Greek voters elected a government led by the center-left SYRIZA that promised to end austerity and renegotiate the public debt so that the country can end neoliberal policies that strengthen a few thousand domestic and foreign companies and individuals, lower unemployment, raise wages and social security, raise GDP to pre-austerity levels around one-quarter of a trillion euro and restore the middle class and workers who have been paying the costs of austerity with an estimate one-third cut in their income levels. The German government, media and financial circles have been arguing that Greece is pressuring the EU, trying to get away not paying the debt, trying to change the rules by which EU members are obligated to follow, and sending the wrong signal to the markets and other debtor nations.

For its part, Athens has argues that Germany has not paid an estimated 40 to 150 billion in war crimes reparations it owes. Therefore, it has no moral authority to speak about dead beats. It does not help of course that SYRIZA has a flamboyant finance minister Yiannis Varoufakis, interested much more in presenting himself to the world than presenting in the best possible light the program of the country he represents. This unfortunate choice for finance minister aside, the problem is the direction SYRIZA wishes to take and not the celebrity-crazed individual who seems to enjoy self-promotion. In that same spot Greece could have had Nelson Mandela and Albert Einstein together and it would not have made any difference to the IMF and Germany that do not want changes in austerity measures or neoliberal policies.

It does not help that Greece has a serious problem with public sector and private sector corruption. One-third of the economy continues to operate under what the World Bank classifies as “black market or subterranean” economy. When the few thousand families that own 80% of the country’s wealth have taken most of their money out of the country, and refuse to pay taxes on their business operations how could any government carry on its duties? Systemic corruption under a system of “baksheesh capitalism” is not going to change any time soon no matter what policy direction SYRIZA or any other regime adopts, and not when there is no effort by the IMF and EU to help Greece fight public and private sector corruption. Fighting corruption is impossible because the largest European and Greek financial interests are involved, everyone from Siemens corporation to Greek shipping tycoons transporting narcotics and illegal crude oil and cigarettes.

Failure on the part of the EU and IMF to help previous governments pursue tax evaders who are primarily the top ten percent of the people owning 80% of the wealth has been a shortcoming, as much as failure to collect back taxes from foreign corporations. Another major failure is the insistence that Greece continue defense buying from Germany and France, despite the sharp drop in GDP. This is reminiscent of what the US was doing in the 1950s when Greece was one of the world’s poorest nations but its defense spending was the world’s second highest behind South Vietnam. Finally, the IMF and EU promised the moon in 2010 when they introduced austerity and neoliberal policies, but have delivered an unmitigated disaster by their own standards, let alone those of austerity critics.

What are the options for Greece and what are its prospects?

OPTION One: Stay the course: austerity and neo-liberalism

One option is to remain in the euro and maintain its quasi-colonial status as it has not just under austerity but since 1832 when the country declared independence and under Anglo-French stewardship provided a Bavarian King Otto to rule over it on behalf of the patron countries that had extended loans to achieve Greek independence. Staying the course without any substantial deviation from austerity and neoliberal policies would be a triumph for Germany and Western finance capital.

The same prospect would be a resounding political defeat for all EU periphery members, sending a strong message to them that Germany is the undisputed patron of the EU operating no different than a colonial master in the 19th century when public debt was used as leverage for foreign financial, economic, trade, political and military control. Finally, staying the course after promising voters the end of austerity and neoliberal policies would be a major blow to democracy and it will result in polarized political climate. The majority of citizens back the SYRIZA regime at this point, but a few months from now they will want to see results that are tangible in their lives, like lower real estate taxes, higher income, jobs prospects for their unemployed children, etc.

Option Two: Re-establish monetary sovereignty

Another option is for the country to leave the euro zone and take its chances on its own. Establishing monetary sovereignty would go a long way to having a better handle on internal policies that governments had essentially handed over to the IMF and EU. Exiting the euro is prospect that would result in a great deal of misery for the vast majority of the people in the short-to-intermediate term, and something that would send the euro and European stock markets tumbling. Greece is still going to be a part of Europe, Western European companies will still trade with it, which means that European would have no choice but to provide it with liquidity largely because the Greek economy is so integrated with the EU, and the world economy. For example, all auto companies, all electronics companies, all communications companies, all transportation companies, including China’s COSCO shipping, among many others, will pressure their governments to come up with liquidity agreements via Greek banks and Greece’s central bank so these companies conduct business and retain market share.

As for Greek businesspeople, they have already taken out between 500 and 900 billion euro, so they could easily bring some of it back as needed in order to conduct their domestic business. Liquidity from abroad will be slow and sluggish until some stability emerges, but it will be there especially once a new deal is struck on a debt repayment schedule. This is one scenario that would not mean Greece would become an equal to Germany and France because of national monetary sovereignty. After all, Greece was an economic, political and military dependency when it had its own currency and it will be so again. The question here is not whether it will be or not a dependent or semi-colonial country for that is a given The issue is to lessen the degree of foreign control and misery index at home by establishing financial sovereignty.

Option Three: Policy mix with focus on defense budget cuts.

The last option has to do with one of the most wasteful sectors in the economy and one where 10% to 50% of expenses are devoted to bribes not just for government officials, politicians voting in Parliament and others linked to purchases of everything from machine guns to German subs, but even journalists and academics to mold public opinion about the importance of having even more weapons that will never be used. The easy answer for having a defense sector is that Turkey is very strong militarily and it threatens both Greece and Cyprus. Even if Greece were to double defense spending, from 2.5 percent of GDP to five percent, it would still not match Turkey that can easily defeat Greece in a few weeks. Deterrence against Turkey is simply non-existent. The second argument for defense is that Greece is a NATO member and under collective defense agreements must maintain its current levels. This is actually what prevents the country from making any move, because if it downsizes its defense sector to border patrol, coast guard and domestic security, the US and EU could permit Turkey to have its way in Cyprus and even take a few of the Aegean islands on the eastern-most areas.

Greek defense spending has been one of the highest in the world in per capita terms even in the 1950s when it ranked among the poorest in the world. In per capita terms, Greek defense spending ranked no 7 in the world in 2009, spending $1,230, while France and England spend in the mid-$950s, despite their lofty place among the G-7 richest nations in the world. Even during the austerity years from 2010 until the present, the defense budget continues to absorb 2.5% (2.1% by some estimate) of GDP in real terms, an amount that translates to $5 billion in a country that has been in technical bankruptcy and borrows from IMF and EU to service its public debt.

It is interesting that every single political party from the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn to the ruling center-left SYRIZA, to the Communist Party agree that defense cannot be touched. In the five years during austerity, no one political party ever uttered a word about slashing defense, though they spoke a great deal of the monumental corruption associated with the defense ministry weapons’ procurements. Why is it that no political party has suggested slashing defense to cover very basic needs, and save several billion dollars needed for other expenditures?

One reason is that all of them are nationalistic and believe without what they see as strong defense Turkey would take back the Balkan province it lost in the 1820s. Another explanation is that all political parties know there is no popular support for cutting defense. A third explanation is that all of them are taking money indirectly from defense contractors and governments that want Greece to maintain strong defense. Other explanations include the possibility that cutting defense would only result in higher unemployment in a country with 26% official unemployment. Another reason is that Cyprus among other countries including Israel wants Greece to have a strong defense. No matter what the reason, no political party is addressing the defense issue although here is a sector that could be discussed as part of a broader policy mix to save money amid a crisis. Above all, the US has been pressuring all NATO members including Greece to increase not decrease defense spending because Russia is the new old enemy, at least for now, until further notice.

What option does SYRIZA have amid such dilemma?

The ruling party knows that Germans want Greece to keep buying obsolete weapons that will never be used, just like submarines costing billions but in constant need of repairs even before leaving port. The US needs Greece for its own military purposes and it is not about to permit defense cuts. SYRIZA Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras appointed the independent conservative-nationalist (Independent Greek party) Panos Kamenos to the defense ministry, sending a message that this area of government will not make deep cuts in defense.

Considering that the eclectic leftist rhetoric clashed with the realities of austerity and neo-liberal policies the new government will be following, there is no doubt that SYRIZA has made its choice to accept the German-imposed patron-client integration model under policies that the conservative New Democracy party and PASOK have been following in the first half of this decade. The result will be continued downward socioeconomic mobility and more college-educated people leaving the country. However, this is the history of modern Greece, with the exception of an expansionary cycle coming from 1980 until 2005 when billions borrowed were not invested in the economy but went for consumption instead of production.

There is always the unexpected in politics, the big surprise that may come as a result of a public referendum on accepting or rejecting the IMF-EU terms, staying or leaving the euro. The unexpected could come as a result of a regional war breaking out and changing conditions for Europe, or perhaps more EU members joining the anti-austerity choir and confronting Germany’s patron-client model. I do not regard these as realistic, and believe that even symbolically SYRIZA sent a strong message to the EU elites that fear democracy because they realize it entails catering to the interests of the people.

Although this government should have looked at all possible models of economic planning and development from non-aligned countries and from the BRICS, it should have looked closer at the problem associated with trying to assert partial national sovereignty, and it should have tried to be a lot more honest with the voters that still support it by at least 60 percent according to opinion polls, the question is whether it has learned anything at all from its brief experience in the last five weeks. The easy route is simply to yield to co-optation by domestic and international financial, political and military elites and take its chances fooling the voters in the next election. After all, this is exactly what previous governments did as well. What lessons are there for Spain’s PODEMOS and other progressive political parties in Europe? Do not over promise and under deliver, study all possible options before going to the negotiating table, have several back up plans and always inform the voters honestly about the limited leverage of a debtor nation when negotiating with powers that have enormous leverage as creditors.

Can The Hindu Nationalist Modi Play A Saviour Role To Tamils In Sri Lanka?

Siritunga Jayasuriya

Siritunga Jayasuriya

The forthcoming state visit of India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Sri Lanka and the red carpet welcome accorded to him, including the ceremonial speech to the Sri Lanka's parliament are indeed a bad omen for all the democratic, left and progressive forces of this country. The March 13-14 visit is the first standalone trip by an Indian PM to Sri Lanka in 28 years

The International Socialists the United Socialist Party (CWI - Sri Lanka) stands for the best of co-operation, understanding and solidarity with the people of neighbouring countries, especially with India with whom the people of Sri Lanka share a common heritage, history and a common struggle for the emancipation of our oppressed peoples. USP stands and follows the rich tradition of the BLPI which had a reverberating effect on the anti-Imperialist struggle in both countries during the People's Freedom Struggle against the British Imperialism in the sub-continent.

The USP has always stood steadfast and has separated itself from the forces of jingoism and right-wing nationalism from all quarters, including the so called "Marxist" JVP and its later day variants. But as a political force which unflinchingly stands for socialism and its victory in the entire world, the USP has stood by the struggles of the people in both lands. Be it the anti-nuclear struggle in Koodankulam in Tamil Nadu, or the anti-globalisation struggle against POSCO company in Odisha or the heroic struggle of Irom Sharmila Chanu of Manipur against the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) terrorising the peoples of North East and Kashmir by India, USP has always expressed its solidarity and political support to the struggling masses in India.

The entire history of USP in Sri Lanka is marked by its uncompromising stand on its support to the Right to Self-Determination of the Tamils of North and the East, including and up to separation. But many a times the USP has stood alone in the entire country to patiently explain our stand point both to Tamils as well as Sinhala masses. During the infamous IPKF period, when the right wing reaction amongst the Sinhala population was represented by Deshapremi movement, which opposed the India's intervention from a reactionary stand point, USP had opposed IPKF from its own political perspective.

We in the USP warned that "the army of India is no liberator of the Tamils, they will turn their guns very quickly against the oppressed Tamils, India is here because of its sub-imperialist ambitions and they will not tolerate a radical government in their southern borders which could influence the Tamil Nadu masses". But our voice was isolated and even vehemently opposed not just by the Sinhala radicals but unfortunately even the Tamil parties did not understand our independent socialist stand point.

Times have passed, but the history is repeating itself with a blatantly right variance. Now, not only the Sinhala bourgeois and the petty-bourgeois sections but even the Tamil National Alliance is finding common cause in welcoming the utterly anti-minority, anti-Muslim leader of BJP, the one who stands firmly on the slogan of Hindu Rashtra, which is nothing but an aspiration of Indian imperialism.

If for some reason the Tamil leadership of the North thinks that they have found a saviour in Modi and would solve the Tamil Nationality question for them, they are grossly mistaken. USP would like to warn the misguided TNA and other forces, that Modi, the BJP or their think tank do not even consider Tamils in India as nationality, they categorically state that it is a language problem only. Hence to expect the Modi magic wand to intervene here is nothing but falling into a foolery. Modi & BJP unmistakeably stand for the supremacy of Indian nation, which according to them is a Hindu Nation.

For those amongst the Sinhala right, who think that Modi is their role model and hence they can do business with him, are also completely mistaken. Modi apart from being the pivotal head of Hindutva nationalist forces, is also the brutal face of corporate interests of India. For the BBS types who eulogise Modi and RSS, they must realise that Buddhism according to the RSS is offshoot of Hinduism and not very distinct and hence they would play down the fact that historically Buddhism was rebellion against the Brahminical upper caste supremacy of Hindutva forces.

It is in the people’s interests of Sri Lanka, that we find a common platform to fight against the tyrants of the region including Modi and our own ilk. It is in this endeavour that we should be with the progressive and struggling forces in Tamil Nadu and the rest of India, who are putting up a valiant fight against the Hindu Right represented by Modi, BJP & RSS.

USP unequivocally opposes the visit of Modi to Sri Lanka. We call upon the oppressed masses; Tamils, Muslims and Sinhala people to voice their protest against the government on the day of giving such a welcome to an undeserving communal bigot who has the blood of the people on his hands.